Interesting serious starting on PT

[Jedidiah]

At this stage in life/level of maturity, I am well past the petty reaction of being "offended" - I am assuming that you are there also. So let's set that aside. This is about the extremely serious matter of unwittingly/unknowingly serving as an ally of the very thing that wishes to destroy (y)our faith. Do think about that, Jedidiah.

I am a Bible believing Christian. I interpret Genesis differently than you do, but don't tell me you do not interpret. Reading is interpretation. I believe what the Bible says. So how have I allied with anti Christians? Specifically?

[Roy]

I am a Bible believing Christian. I interpret Genesis differently than you do, but don't tell me you do not interpret. Reading is interpretation. I believe what the Bible says. So how have I allied with anti Christians? Specifically?

[rogue06]

I am a Bible believing Christian. I interpret Genesis differently than you do, but don't tell me you do not interpret. Reading is interpretation. I believe what the Bible says. So how have I allied with anti Christians? Specifically?

Exactly. Even the literal interpretation or the so-called plain and simple interpretation is still an interpretation by definition.

[phank]

]Those cave-dwelling characters, in case you missed it, represent the Materialists engaged in their one-dimensional view of reality.

Jorge

But perhaps an in-depth discussion of metaphysical naturalism would give you more of a target to shoot at. Since metaphysical naturalism holds that "the supernatural" is entirely imaginary, and that no recourse to gods or magic is necessary to explain any aspect of our reality, that should present you with a target large enough so that you can expand beyond uninformed rejection. Rejection is more persuasive when you provide a clue that you understand what you're rejecting, and why.

[phank]

Exactly. Even the literal interpretation or the so-called plain and simple interpretation is still an interpretation by definition.

If we should view our appreciation of the objective universe as a sort of book to be interpreted, then would you say some interpretations are likely to be more accurate than others? Your interpretation of the meaning of much of what science has learned strikes me as generally compelling, moreso than the interpretations you attempt to use evidence to dispute. Do you feel that reality itself has a limit beyond which there may be truth forever inaccessible to human investigation?

[klaus54]

If we should view our appreciation of the objective universe as a sort of book to be interpreted, then would you say some interpretations are likely to be more accurate than others? Your interpretation of the meaning of much of what science has learned strikes me as generally compelling, moreso than the interpretations you attempt to use evidence to dispute. Do you feel that reality itself has a limit beyond which there may be truth forever inaccessible to human investigation?

Would the Planck Time and Length qualify?

[rwatts]

At this stage in life/level of maturity, I am well past the petty reaction of being "offended" - I am assuming that you are there also. So let's set that aside. This is about the extremely serious matter of unwittingly/unknowingly serving as an ally of the very thing that wishes to destroy (y)our faith. Do think about that, Jedidiah.

Jorge

The moment a human looked up, saw rain falling from a cloud, and claimed that a natural process might do it, your faith began to be destroyed Jorge. The faith of Christians like Jim and rogue06 remains firm however.

[rwatts]

Would the Planck Time and Length qualify?

How similar is it to phank time?

[Jorge]

I am a Bible believing Christian. I interpret Genesis differently than you do, but don't tell me you do not interpret. Reading is interpretation. I believe what the Bible says. So how have I allied with anti Christians? Specifically?

OF COURSE interpretation is required - why suggest that I am unaware of this?
But there's proper interpretation and then there's erroneous interpretation.
Which one is practiced depends on a number of factors (another subject).

As for answering your last two questions :
I don't know enough about your specific beliefs to give you an full, accurate answer.
What little I do know is that you embrace and advocate gigayears - right?
With this, you deny the biblical chronology and advance the Materialistic chronology.
Now, pardon me but if that isn't "allying with the Materialists" then perhaps my
understanding of the English language isn't as solid as I had thought.
NOTE: I had also said unwittingly/unknowingly - IOW, I am not saying that you
are assisting these people on purpose. But assisting them you are.
That's just one area - I'd need to learn more to speak any further.

Jorge

[Jorge]

But perhaps an in-depth discussion of metaphysical naturalism would give you more of a target to shoot at. Since metaphysical naturalism holds that "the supernatural" is entirely imaginary, and that no recourse to gods or magic is necessary to explain any aspect of our reality, that should present you with a target large enough so that you can expand beyond uninformed rejection. Rejection is more persuasive when you provide a clue that you understand what you're rejecting, and why.

Uhmmm ... I've completed 'basic algebra' and 'advanced calculus' decades ago, Phankestein, so there's no need for you to lecture me on how to add fractions. Catch my meaning?

It is you and people like you that are utterly clueless on things like Metaphysical (aka Ontological or Philosophical) Naturalism and its sidekick, Methodological Naturalism. Note that I capitalize the names - I do that for all religious names such as Atheist, Humanists, Buddhists and, yes, Christians. BTW, strictly speaking these aren't religions in and of themselves. Naturalism (in the sense used here) in general is actually a critical component of a religious position known as Materialism. I capitalize because they are inseparable and in that sense essentially synonymous.

The late C. Sagan summed up this religion (your religion) quite nicely with his statement, "The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." It is a statement that boldly, loudly, with blind, fanatical religiousness claims that mass-energy is EVERYTHING. That is what Sagan meant with the word "Cosmos" = "physical, measurable mass-energy in the universe".

Anyway, try your hand with someone that perhaps you can bamboozle.

Jorge

[phank]

Uhmmm ... I've completed 'basic algebra' and 'advanced calculus' decades ago, Phankestein, so there's no need for you to lecture me on how to add fractions. Catch my meaning?

It is you and people like you that are utterly clueless on things like Metaphysical (aka Ontological or Philosophical) Naturalism and its sidekick, Methodological Naturalism. Note that I capitalize the names - I do that for all religious names such as Atheist, Humanists, Buddhists and, yes, Christians. BTW, strictly speaking these aren't religions in and of themselves. Naturalism (in the sense used here) in general is actually a critical component of a religious position known as Materialism. I capitalize because they are inseparable and in that sense essentially synonymous.

The late C. Sagan summed up this religion (your religion) quite nicely with his statement, "The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." It is a statement that boldly, loudly, with blind, fanatical religiousness claims that mass-energy is EVERYTHING. That is what Sagan meant with the word "Cosmos" = "physical, measurable mass-energy in the universe".

Anyway, try your hand with someone that perhaps you can bamboozle.

Jorge

If insults and empty assertions were evidence, you'd have a slam dunk Nobel prize here. You call everyone clueless, but never provide any clues. You call lack of religion a religion, and don't seem to care that you don't make sense. I'm not trying to bamboozle you at all. I'm asking for your reasoning. "You are clueless" is NOT a reason, it's an evasion.

[firstfloor]

David MacMillan’s experience demonstrates that sincerely held religious convictions are mutable. Commenting on the recent Nye/Ham debate he points out that science does not make assumptions about the past, it makes testable models. The models can run backwards. The fact that processes like erosion, plate tectonics, volcanism and earthquakes are still ongoing means that creation (of this planet at least) is a process and not a definite point in time. Creation dates or events like the flood derived from Biblical literature are based on religious assumptions; fitting them to scientific models amounts to the imposition of arbitrary boundary conditions which cannot be tested and are therefore unscientific.

If God sends us His bill we might have to think again.

[klaus54]

OF COURSE interpretation is required - why suggest that I am unaware of this?
But there's proper interpretation and then there's erroneous interpretation.
Which one is practiced depends on a number of factors (another subject).

As for answering your last two questions :
I don't know enough about your specific beliefs to give you an full, accurate answer.
What little I do know is that you embrace and advocate gigayears - right?
With this, you deny the biblical chronology and advance the Materialistic chronology.
Now, pardon me but if that isn't "allying with the Materialists" then perhaps my
understanding of the English language isn't as solid as I had thought.
NOTE: I had also said unwittingly/unknowingly - IOW, I am not saying that you
are assisting these people on purpose. But assisting them you are.
That's just one area - I'd need to learn more to speak any further.

Jorge

Because Jorgian YEC "reading" IS an interpretation. Duh!

And its interpretation (reading) is one that you apparently don't understand, since you can't give a plain, simple, straightforward, direct reading of Ge 1:2-3. In addition, the JYEC reading of ra'qia or stereoma, is likely quite different to that of the ancient Hebrew.

Why? That's why!

K54

[Jorge]

The moment a human looked up, saw rain falling from a cloud, and claimed that a natural process might do it, your faith began to be destroyed Jorge. The faith of Christians like Jim and rogue06 remains firm however.

The above has earned you the grade of F-minus on Basic Theology and Science.

Jorge

[Jorge]

If insults and empty assertions were evidence, you'd have a slam dunk Nobel prize here.

Nope - that's Strike 1.
What you call "insults" are actually in-your-face, no-pulled-punches, call-a-spade-a-spade
words that people like yourself dislike and so you feel "insulted". Sorry, not my problem.

You call everyone clueless, but never provide any clues.

Nope - that's Strike 2.
A person would have to be beyond delusional to claim - as you do here - that in the over 14,000 posts in the old TWeb added to the nearly 400 so far in this TWeb, I have "never provided any clues". I mean, would you get real, Phankestein? The problem is that you either don't want to get the clues or are intellectually unable to grasp the clues. I have my own ideas but I'll let you decide which of these two applies.

You call lack of religion a religion, and don't seem to care that you don't make sense. I'm not trying to bamboozle you at all. I'm asking for your reasoning. "You are clueless" is NOT a reason, it's an evasion.

Nope - that's Strike 3, yerrrrrr OUT!

I've been reading your posts for years now and even those of your own religious persuasion have thrown rocks at your posts. My reasoning on this topic is clear enough and I've presented it umpteen times in the past.

In a sentence: E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E has a religious position.
The only question that needs an answer is, which religious position is it?

To illustrate, the Atheist is (must be!) a Materialist and Materialism - as anyone that has gotten past Philosophy 101 knows - is a religious position, i.e., based on metaphysical presuppositions and beliefs.

There is a tremendous amount of ignorance, confusion and deliberate deception floating around on this matter. For instance, many people think that if some "supernatural god" isn't involved then neither is religion involved. That is wrong, a religion does not demand that a deity exist (Taoism, Buddhism, Pantheism- just to mention a few).

Hope that helps to clear up some things in your mind.

Jorge